19 February 2009

I'm going to assume you're familiar with the narrative of Numbers 22-24. Balak, son of Zippor, king of Moab (Joshua 24:9), tries to hire the services of a seer named Balaam. Balak believes that Balaam's words have power (22:6), and he wants Balaam to aim those words at his enemy: Israel.

The whole Balak/Balaam saga is a study in paganism vs. Yahwism. The pagan worldview is that the gods can be handled, "worked," manipulated to serve us and our will. The gods may not be much more than personified, magnified forces of nature; but if we work the right forms and rituals, we can make them serve us. We can make them do what we want them to do.

Balak approaches Balaam from this perspective, this worldview. It doesn't matter to Balak whether Balaam calls his deity Yahweh, Baal, or Brittany. He wants Balaam to work his mojo and get this Yahweh-thingie working for him.

Balak is absolutely nonplused at Balaam's insistence that he can't do that with Yahweh (22:13, 18). Balak is stunned. It does not compute, it blows Balak's circuits. It is inconceivable.

So, Balak figures there must just be a communication problem, or something. Or maybe Balaam's trying to haggle up the price? Balak offers more money. He sends more and flashier dignitaries. Finally, Balaam comes — but still he can't work the name of Yahweh into a curse (22:35, 38; 23:8, etc.).

But Balak doesn't give up. Maybe it isn't Balaam who's driving such a hard bargain. Maybe it's Yahweh. So... if not now, then maybe in a few minutes? If not from here, maybe from there? Or there? Or — come on, work with me! — surely from up there?

Not only is the answer an unrelenting "No," but Balaam blesses Israel, over and over.

Balaam himself is a troubling figure, though a sterling illustration of Biblical inerrancy (see Ronald B. Allen's crackling-good essay on the theology of the Balaam oracles). Balaam looms as a quintessential false prophet for his love of money (2 Peter 2:15; Jude 11; Revelation 2:14).

And yet even Balaam knew that Yahweh could not be manipulated, as could the false gods of paganism. Even he knew that Yahweh was Lord, and His word was law (cf. Numbers 22:13, 34, 38). Only thing Balaam finally could figure out to do was to get Israel to bring a judgment on themselves (cf. Numbers 31:16; Revelation 2:14).

So, Balak assumed that Yahweh — like all the gods — was both mutable and malleable. In truth, Yahweh was (and is) neither (Numbers 23:19; Malachi 3:6). Hence Israel's cry,

"Who is like you, O LORD,among the gods?Who is like you,majestic in holiness,awesome in glorious deeds,doing wonders?" (Exodus 15:11).

Who is like Yahweh among the gods? No one!

We shake our heads at Balak's folly... but did it really die with him? Can we not see it in Christendom, or even in "evangelicalism"?

Of course you think "Word-faith movement," and of course you're right. But is it only those nutty, absurd heretics?

Do we see it, sometimes, when people try to get the pastor to "say a prayer" for them, as if he had more "pull" with God, and could get God to see it their way? Don't even the doctrinally more orthodox fall into trying to faith God into doing something, or much-word Him, or good-works Him, or better-than-the-other-guy Him?

Or can we even see whispers in ourselves, as we (unconsciously) try this or that to get God to support our agenda?

Obviously I believe in prayer, as the Bible explains and enjoins it. I've talked about prayer's divinely-designed limitations, and I've also discussed how significant it has been and can be, in the sovereign plans of God. But Christian prayer must always have the essential element that breathes Christ's spirit: "Not my will, but Yours." Even as we plead, argue Scripture, press the promises, lay out our case, we must know: if we actually could manipulate God, it would be the most disastrous event in the universe.

I've often said to God, in closing, after pressing my case to the best of my ability, "...but then, You get to be God — and that's a good thing!"

61 comments:

I feel that one of the most important things that we must be able to do in order to pray "Thy will be done" is to believe and trust that God's will for us is always good and perfect. Once we truly believe that, then we can consistently and meaningfully pray for God's will to be done in our lives, often times despite our selfish wishes. More important that praying for God to accomplish what we want to come to pass is to pray for a Pauline contentment in whatever the circumstances that God brings into our lives.

Now Eric, I'm going to take your good point and springboard onto a counterpoint.

Semi-Christianoid 12-step programs advocate just praying for contentment or resignation to the Divine. This too is not Biblical. It does not follow the examples set forth in Scripture, nor the specific exhortations.

God enlists us as soldiers, slaves, sons. Our prayers are part of how He advances His program; He sovereignly works them into His designt. Spurgeon says brilliantly that believing, God-pleasing prayer is a Divine decree in its outworking.

So prayer as a participation in the will of God is one thing. That's Christianity. I can pray for my own growth in holiness with absolute conviction that I am praying according to God's will. I can pray that God bless my study and truthful, God-honoring proclamation of His Word with similar confidence.

But when I pray (say) that a specific church would accept me as its pastor, then I may make my suggestion and plead my case, but I have to submit gladly to God's sovereign will, with no idea of what it would be.

My favorite example of prayer is David. He holds nothing back, lays it all on the line when pleading his case before God. He also consistently confesses that God is, in fact God. Isn't that central to prayer?

"Even as we plead, argue Scripture, press the promises, lay out our case, we must know: if we actually could manipulate God, it would be the most disastrous event in the universe."

True that! We need to approach our infinitely wise heavenly Father with child-like faith, knowing that He always wills what is ultimately for our eternal good and His glory.

Similarly, Spurgeon wrote, in his "Treasury of David" (on Psalm 130:2):"It is better for our prayer to be heard than answered. If the Lord were to make an absolute promise to answer all our requests it might be rather a curse than a blessing, for it would be casting the responsibility of our lives upon ourselves, and we should be placed in a very anxious position. But now the Lord hears our desires, and that is enough; we only wish Him to grant them if His infinite wisdom sees that it would be for our good and for His glory."

Seriously, I think some of the "going to a Pastor" for some may also have to do with "the Prayers of a righteous man..." . Although even in that, people would rather find a righteous man to pray for them than become a righteous man(woman) themself.

A professor I greatly respect used to pray for others this way: after bringing the requests before God, he would often say, "We ask for these things we want, like children asking their father; and we trust that you will give us the things we need, because you ARE our father."

That spoke pretty deeply to my life, and affects the attitude I want to have when praying.

But surely, if we have really big prayer events, and all make especially contorted faces when we pray, it's much more powerful than if we're on our own knees, in our bedrooms? No? Not even if we wear the branded t-shirts?

That's the actual theology being thrown around by various people in the church that I try to weasel out of going to every Sunday. The pastor either also believes it, or is complicit by not correcting it. I suspect the former.

So sad that people who subscribe to the "K. Copeland" brand of theology seem to be imprisoned by it.Always fearful that they might bring calamity on themselves or others simply with their words, even carelessly spoken ones.Always binding Satan and his minions, not wanting them to listen in on conversations and the like.

As John MacArthur once said, if Satan's getting bound by these folks all the time, who's the nut-job who keeps letting him out?

A friend of mine is (or was?) a follower of Copeland; he didn't like my attempts to share the truth of God's Sovereignty with him, telling him that there was no point in his trying to "bind Satan", as God is sovereign over Satan too (as in Job).

He told me I spoke too much negativity in to his life..... this guy used to bind Satan from reading his emails!

Not sure if I could attend a church where those views were subscribed to, or even tolerated.....

I actually believe there are times our prayers are not answered or even heard by God. Obviously there is some definition of "heard " needed, but scripture is clear that God chooses to turn a deaf ear to the unrighteous or those with unconfessed sin. (Ps 66:18, 1 Peter 3:7,12, Prov 21:13, Deut 1:45)

"Don't even the doctrinally more orthodox fall into trying to faith God into doing something..."

You caught me.

I appreciate the way you (guys) put your finger(s) on some very subtle, slippery, not-talked-about-much pitfalls.

Timely post, for me. I've been noticing this about myself (trying to manipulate God) just in the last few days. Guess He really wanted to show me that.

"No Longer Blind"--thank you for sharing the words of Spurgeon from the Treasury of David. I love the point that it would be somewhat of a curse to be promised an answer to all our requests, because it would result in an anxiety-causing responsibility for our lives being placed upon ourselves.

I think I've been operating with that very anxiety humming along inside me at some deeper level.

I had some the same thought. (Green eggs and ham, being a favorite around the house...)

Dan,

You're quite right. I didn't mean to imply that some prayers were just wafted into the ether and unheard, of course, but that I have prayed many a foolish prayer and have grown to be thankful God did NOT answer my prayer in the way I had thought he should.

Sir Brass,I think the Spirit praying is because we don't know how to pray always, a totally different issue from whether or not we are in the place to pray. When we persist in habitual sin or whatever, we are choosing to be out of God's will and therefore in essence telling Him we want you to do what we want, but we are not going to do what you Will. Look, the scriptures are there, I deal with them plainly. If they say that if I am a bad hubby God will not listen to me, I take that seriously.

Without trying to cause a blogospheric explosion, or particularly impugn anyone, I can tell you that the way I "do it" is because I am a sinner who is actually saved by grace -- and God is chastising me like a son. What I don't do is see every adversity as a place which puts my faith at risk.

You know: I am not the first one to live the Christian life, and even if nobody tol' me there'd be days like these (strange days indeed), here they are. All who seek to live a Godly life will be persecuted.

Will be. So you expect the worst, give thanks to God that it is never that bad, get serious about knowing Scripture because God has in fact made a provision for you there by His word, and learn from your mistakes.

If you wallow in your mistakes, you're not learning: you're just complaining. Sanctification comes because whatever has come, abasing or abounding, the highs and the lows, you are seeking out the mind of Christ in those things.

DO NOT read this comment as self-congratulatory -- I really had very little to do with who I am, and if I had had more to do with it, I would be even less than what I am now. But recognizing that the NT tells us that the world is not oiur home, that our journey here is not just hard but in fact fatal, and that God is waiting for us in order to give us a permanent home after we have given Him the glory combats self pity and self-ignorance.

Much of prayer is a mystery, however I see places in Scripture where God gives his people what they desire in opposition to what He desires. (Saul, etc.) Therefore I conclude that at times God's will on some things has by His will more than one choice.

Me: God, (as I gaze at the McDonald's menu) what do you want me to have?

God: You should have a salad, but you can order a fish filet.

Me: Is that your perfect will?

God: No, my perfect will was not to go to McDonald's in the first place!

Mercy me. Shades of Dr. Seuss and John Lennon in one meta. A meta on prayer.

I don't know if I'll survive this. Somehow trying to imagine along with a helping of green eggs and ham is making me a bit befuddled. Couple that with suddenly seeing how off base some of my own praying has been, and I'm ready to take a Vicodin and go to bed.

Usually I'm just too busy praying that God have mercy on me, praying for my wife's salvation, and praying that God guide me in what kind of service He is calling me to, that I'm too busy to pray for other stuff.

If I have any idol in my prayers, it's the salvation of my wife. I'm still perplexed as to why God would have called me (yeah, according to His sovereign good pleasure, I know), and for what purpose—and whatever the purpose is, I will not ultimately be able to do it without the unconditional support of my wife (who, being a non-believer, has a different set of priorities). In the meantime, I pray for him to not make our lives too difficult, because I know how He can tear a pereson's life down until they surrender themselves to Him, and I see how He's doing it to my wife. I know He will give us the grace to deal with any situation He puts in our path, but still....

So there is some selfishness here, and some desire for comfort, and some expectation that our lives will be "easier" when she is saved—but with that comes the knowledge that come that day, it may be time for God to really bring on the trials, since she and I will truly have each other's backs in prayer and fellowship. Eek!

Until then, I'm just trying to live out my Christian life (and often failing) day in and day out, ministering in small ways, discipling, and struggling to come to terms with His inscrutable will.

I don't find it accurate to equate desire and will as you seem to have done.

God may desire things (as in "to long for") that will not come to pass. For example, God desires that I obey Him fully, but I do not and will not and can not. This, however is not a violation of God's will ("a choice or determination of one having authority or power"). If God were to allow multiple contingencies, He would not be sovereign because He would not know which contingency He would later allow. God is unchangeable, as is His sovereign will.

The words in quotation marks in my comment were intended to relay the difference between the two words. Would you not agree that "to long for" does not equate with " a choice or determination of one having authority or power"? Do you not find it accurate to say that God longs for my obedience but has not determined (decreed) that it will happen?

"Do you not find it accurate to say that God longs for my obedience but has not determined (decreed) that it will happen?"

You are on your way to Arminianism, brother! I just don't see how God can desire something and not will it. I am Arminian so I want you to have all the facts about me. And I'm just kidding in the first sentence.

I guess we speak of mysteries. I will not know everything until September 23, 2009 at 4:07 PM. Until then, I am finite! :)

I'm not sure if quoting 1 Cor 7:16 offers much comfort to the situation (which is what I gathered you were offering). I at least would have included verse 14 "...and the unbelieving wife is sanctified through her husband..." I guess that's just an example of how quoting single "verses" in scripture isn't necessarily the best idea. I prefer paragraphs, get the author's full thought, not someone's segmented sentence.

@Stefan

Keep praying for the strength to witness and the opportunities to reflect God in how you live. I can only imagine how painful some of those times can be. But just remember that God loves her as much as He loves anyone.

You know, I was sort of giving the Stefan the benefit of the doubt that he would understand the context.

Since I didn't misapply the verse there is nothing wrong with quoting the single verse, um you may have noticed in your bible reading that al large number of the quotations of scriptures by, oh the Lord Jesus or Paul, are single verses.

I just got off the phone with a dear new sister in Christ who is wrestling with how to pray for God's will in her husband's life. Her fear is that if God answers in a way that her husband doesn't like, her husband will blame her. I reassured her that, compelling and convincing as she often is, she not all that. A good thing indeed. :)

Frankly, all of that section of 1 Corinthians 7 has been a comfort to me. Ditto for Ephesians 5:22-33 and 1 Peter 3:1-7.

Sure, verse 16 is a tough verse (considering its context), but it too gave me guidance at a time when it looked like that might be the way things go (God forbid). By resigning myself to the possibility—not clinging to the past out of fleshly fear of losing her—God in His grace actually brought about a renewal in our marriage, and we are much closer together now than at any time in the past, and I've grown in my understanding of what it means to be a Christian husband.

Verse 14 is good stuff, too, but salvation for her will ultimately not happen simply by virtue of the fact that she's married to me, but will come the same way it comes to all of us, according to God's sovereign grace. And so I pray and plead with Him, and try to live out Ephesians 5 and 1 Peter 3 to her....

I am aware of your Arminianism as it was showing in your first comment that I responded to, but thanks for pointing it out.

I am not Arminian in theological belief nor do I believe that the quote that you pointed out is in line with Arminianism.

In the quote I was not speaking about salvation, but obedience. I find no place in scripture to suggest that God does not desire my obedience. Rather, since God demands my obedience, it follows that He desires for me to obey. However, had God decreed in His sovereign will that I would obey, it could not be changed.

Perhaps my using the example of obedience muddies the issue. Either way, even as the Webster's definitions that I provided show, the terms "desire" and "will" are not interchangeable. Although you did not answer my question about the difference in the two definitions (how they were parsed), I'll assume that you recognize the difference in the definitions that I provided.

There is no doubt that the nature of God's sovereignty is mysterious to me.

corinthian:As best I can tell, it seems like the verses you referenced are discussing unrepentant sinners, the unrighteous, etc. i.e. Those not under the covenant of grace.

That being said, the verse in 1 Pet 3 does indicate that our prayers may be hindered or impeded if we aren't living as we ought. This doesn't seem to be saying the prayer goes unheard, but rather that the prayer itself is likely to be tainted or flawed in some way.

Admittedly, I've studied more philosophy than theology. I reached a place where I understood the essentials well enough to convey them, and then began really studying how the rest of the world thinks. So, I'm coming at this not as an amatuer, but still ignorant. I'd like to hear some feedback on how a person of Reformed thoelogy reconciles prayer? I view prayer as dynamic, but some Reformed theologians I've talked with show prayer as an exercise for our own development and not as something that can change the world.

All three sources helped me to understand, you are right. So I guess I should reword my question.

I haven't encountered much Reformed theology until the last few weeks and I'm trying to process all this new information. My only previous experience was 4 years ago when a Calvinistic friend incessently told me that God willed me to call him, put on tennis shoes, and so on...

Some of these ideas just sound deistic to me, and I know they weren't intended that way, so I'm trying to better understand the rationale.

Related to this also is that I think the modern equivelant to Baal worship is Liberalism. If you look at the evil fruit that Liberalism is bringing forth, it is the same as ancient Baal worship: sexual immorality and human sacrifice.

What is even more troubling is that Liberal Christians are helping to propagate this evil by their idolatry of a world view that stand in total antithesis to biblical Christianity. We are in for a fight over the very core of the faith.

@ Blue Collar ToddI can agree that liberalism is troubling. However I don't think I'd tag your final link the same way. Saying that Oprah is a liberal Christian is like saying Shamu is a Killer Rhinoceros. There is nothing about her that reflects a faith in Christ (she is liberal though). I'm also not quite so doom and gloom about it all.

@DJPI did chew over the texts you referenced. I was just perplexed at the use of wisdom literature as doctrinal teaching. Gordon Fee and Douglas Stuart wrote an amazing book on different types of literature found in the Bible, How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth and these scholars suggest in a list of 9 rules in handling Proverbs, "2. Proverbs are intensely practical, not theoretically theological."

You really should just read the whole chapter, that little quote doesn't do it justice. Basically, they are saying that Proverbs wasn't written as a doctrinal treatise, it was written as general guidelines by which we should live. Take any single line out of Proverbs and apply it, you could be in for a real problem. I just don't know if I can support a doctrine held together by the linguistic technicalities of pithy sayings.

I'm also somewhat familiar with Proverbs, or at least am trying to be. I've studied it closely for decades, did my Master's thesis on it, and have conducted seminars on it. Proverbs is practical, but it is not non-doctrinal, and dismissing an ore of proverbial teaching is unwarranted. Check out the various posts I've done here on (or around) Proverbs.

I enjoy reading through your material on this site. Not that I agree with all of it, but it's nonetheless interesting.

Like I said earlier, my experience with reformed theology is very limited and not very positive. I'm glad I found a community willing to dialogue on issues and people who are willing to hear out my questions.

Does Paganism really work the spirits? Or do the Spirits work the people all the while make people think they are working the spirits? I look at it this way if it isn't about God getting the glory something is wrong.

The Rules

PREMISE: DO NOT comment at all if you think the "right way" to handle Christian disagreement is to make an appointment and chat over coffee first. The vortex of irony you will create by commenting will sap the hair-care products off your stylish bed-head, and we do not want to be responsible for that.

Remember that you are our guests. We will, at our discretion, delete comments that we find off-topic, derailing, un-civil, slanderous, trollish or troll-feeding, petulant, pestiferous, and/or otherwise obnoxious and non-constructive. If we warn you, stop it. After no more than three warnings, you will find yourself banned, and all your future comments will be immediately deleted.

See an error in the post? How clever of you! Email the author. If you comment a correction, expect the comment to disappear with the error.

If you are confused about how the specifics of these principles play out in practical terms, you'll find a longer list of rules HERE.

Followers

Stats Attack!

Disclaimer

The opinions expressed in this blog do not necessarily represent the views of all contributors. Each individual is responsible for the facts and opinions contained in his posts. Generally, we agree. But not always.